Slashdot Mirror
US Copyright Group — Lawsuits, DDoS, and Bomb Threats
Andorin writes "The US law firm of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver, otherwise known as the US Copyright Group, filed suit at the end of August against another 2,177 individuals for allegedly downloading and sharing the slasher film Cornered! (In total the USCG has now filed suit against over 16,200 individuals.) In retaliation, Operation Payback, the Anonymous-led project responsible for DDoSing websites of the RIAA and MPAA, targeted the US Copyright Group's website with a DDoS, temporarily bringing it down for a few hours. The group behind the attacks say they'll continue 'until they stop being angry.' Additionally, the local police department evacuated the office of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver after a bomb threat was emailed to the firm. The building was searched, but no bomb was found."
If something is illegal, the way to do something about is to change the laws. Not to do further illegal things.
Artists have to earn money too. You immature twats.
Try living in fear of some random nutjob blowing you up for a few months and then come tell us bomb threats are OK as a means to a political ends.
Sorry. In a democracy, you don't always get what you want. You need majority support. Resorting to violence to bully the majority will (hopefully) get you a taste of your own medicine.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
When faced with a fundamentally unjust society people will increasingly turn to alternate means to redress legitimate grievances. This is why civil liberties matter and why due process, equal justice, proportionate punishment, and presumption of innocence rather than presumption of guilt are essential, and yet all of these core principles are under open attack in the United States today.
What legitimate grievances? The RIAA, MPAA, and other groups have generally not been suing people who didn't, in fact, commit copyright infringement. In the few trials that have reached the verdict stage, the defendants have been found liable. The issues are about the level of damages, the cost of litigation, and whether the litigation strategy even makes sense. What's not an issue is that the defendants who were found liable broke the law.
As for due process: the defendants are getting tons of it. They have all the due process of a civil trial in the US, which is a lot. As for presumption of innocence: the defendants have it. It's up to the plaintiffs to allege and prove infringement.
Civil liberties don't really enter into it. It's not like these suits are being used as a cudgel to suppress political dissent or something. Nor is the government using warrantless wiretapping or the like to ferret out filesharers. I'll grant that there are some worrisome provisions in ACTA and some other laws in the pipeline, but those are not the law yet, and they can and should be fought through the political process. Attacking a law firm will not change any of that, and will likely make things worse by making it much easier for the RIAA and MPAA to paint file sharers as dangerous criminals.
Equal justice is a complicated notion. What is it supposed to mean in these cases, where the defendants are being found liable after a fair trial? Anyway, we have laws against frivolous and vexatious litigation, and there are fee-shifting provisions in copyright law that cut both ways (i.e., defendants can get their attorneys fees paid for in some cases). 17 USC 505.
I will grant you proportionate punishment. Statutory damages in copyright law are absurd, but they are just that, statutory damages. They weren't invented by a judge; they were produced by the political process. The way to fight that is to work for reform. That means more than posting on Slashdot. That means ground-level fundraising, door to door campaigning, etc. It's hard work, but that's politics.
The idea that people should be free to use 'alternate means' (i.e., bomb threats and DDOS) to redress grievances is vastly more toxic to due process, equal justice, proportionate punishment, and presumption of innocence than anything the RIAA and MPAA have done. It stands in opposition to the entire notion of civil justice. What due process did this law firm have before they received the bomb threat? What is equal about a system of justice in which vigilantes can do as they please? What's proportionate about threatening to kill someone in response to a lawsuit? What presumption of innocence was the law firm given?